Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[zoobyshoe]

Meanwhile - Clinton: Email scandal "moving toward a resolution"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-says-email-scandal-moving-toward-a-resolution/

I wonder if she's being overly optimistic in assuming there's not going to be any bad consequences for her, or if she's actually been told something to that effect by someone who knows.

 

[Dotini]

I wonder if she's being overly optimistic in assuming there's not going to be any bad consequences for her, or if she's actually been told something to that effect by someone who knows.

Judge Napolitano asserts that a grand jury must have been empaneled to investigate and indict Hillary Clinton, as that's the most likely reason for granting Pagliano immunity from prosecution for his sworn testimony.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/47848061...ing-to-unveil/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips

 

[Dotini]

More seriously and without sarcasm, I am getting very alarmed at the people who don't see all the clear warning signs of a very destructive leader when they look at Trump. He already has a whole country we used to get along fine with pissed off at him.
http://sierrafoothillsreport.com/2015/07/17/trump-pinatas-a-hit-in-mexico-come-to-sacramento/

Isn't the whole point of nationalism to put the interests of your own country ahead of all the others?

 

[jim hardy]

... that's the most likely reason for granting Pagliano immunity from prosecution for his sworn testimony.

Guccifer, the Romanian hacker who got into Blumenthal's server might be there too.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-guccifer-idUSKCN0W61TX

 

[zoobyshoe]

Judge Napolitano asserts that a grand jury must have been empaneled to investigate and indict Hillary Clinton, as that's the most likely reason for granting Pagliano immunity from prosecution for his sworn testimony.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/47848061...ing-to-unveil/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips

That's what I suspected. I saw the immunity as a bad sign for her, indicating it was granted to him in exchange for his helping them gather evidence against her.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Isn't the whole point of nationalism to put the interests of your own country ahead of all the others?

That's a good enough characterization. But, how is gratuitously pissing other countries off good for the U.S.? It's normal for Republicans to adopt a hard line on illegal immigration, that's not the issue, it's the way he so grotesquely insulting about it.

 

[russ_watters]

One man speaks a few truths and it throws RNC's whole self aggrandizing dreamworld into narcisstic rage ?
The price of self delusion is vulnerability to that.

It isn't just the RNC, indeed I think the "narcissistic rage" is stronger coming from the left.

 

[Dotini]

That's a good enough characterization. But, how is gratuitously pissing other countries off good for the U.S.? It's normal for Republicans to adopt a hard line on illegal immigration, that's not the issue, it's the way he so grotesquely insulting about it.

Trump is most definitely a very imperfect vehicle for the fears and aspirations of millions of US voters. Flamboyant billionaires from New York City all seem repulsive to me. But IMHO Trump is the only candidate appealing to the nationalism and populism of the Republican base, especially important on the key issues of immigration, jobs, debt and anti-war.

 

[anorlunda]

I am getting very alarmed at the people who don't see all the clear warning signs of a very destructive leader when they look at Trump.

The very word revolution implies something destructive. Why is it so hard to understand that Trump and Sanders supporters have destructive intentions in the Jeffersonian sense?

I'll refrain from quoting the preamble to The Declaration here, but think along those lines.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Trump is most definitely a very imperfect vehicle for the fears and aspirations of millions of US voters. Flamboyant billionaires from New York City all seem repulsive to me. But IMHO Trump is the only candidate appealing to the nationalism and populism of the Republican base, especially important on the key issues of immigration, jobs, debt and anti-war.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying no candidate is worth considering unless he's an obvious nationalist?

 

[zoobyshoe]

The very word revolution implies something destructive. Why is it so hard to understand that Trump and Sanders supporters have destructive intentions in the Jeffersonian sense?

It's not a revolution, it's a presidential election.

 

[mheslep]

Meanwhile - Clinton: Email scandal "moving toward a resolution"
...

Says Clinton.

 

[mheslep]

... It's normal for Republicans to adopt a hard line on illegal immigration, that's not the issue, ...

No, its hardly normal in the GOP to adopt actual hard line action and thus is *the* issue behind Trump. One can not understand the rise of Trump under such a misconception.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986

Jeb Bush on *illegal* immigration: "it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love."

 

[zoobyshoe]

No, its hardly normal in the GOP to adopt a hard line and thus is *the* issue behind Trump. One can not understand the rise of Trump under such a misconception.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986

Jeb Bush on *illegal* immigration: "it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love."

This is my perception of what happens every election:

Strategists generally agree that to win the White House a Republican nominee needs to secure 40% of the Latino vote, the portion George W. Bush won in 2004. 4 years later Republican John McCain got only 33% when he lost to Democrat Barack Obama.

But for Republicans seeking their party's nomination, the calculation can be different: it is more important to gain white working-class votes by staking out the position of being the toughest candidate on illegal immigrants than it is to court the ascending bloc of Latinos, whose influence registers mainly in the general election. So in the 2012 primary the former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney promoted the idea of a high-tech fence stretching the entire length of the US-Mexico border, nearly 2,000 miles long.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Immigration.htm
So, every election you have GOP candidates "staking out the position of being the toughest candidate on illegal immigrants" to get the nomination, and then softening up on that to get the popular vote.

 

[mheslep]

This is my perception of what happens every election:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Immigration.htm
So, every election you have GOP candidates "staking out the position of being the toughest candidate on illegal immigrants" to get the nomination, and then softening up on that to get the popular vote.

Agreed, there's been all kind of pose adoption. In reality, very little action has been taken, thus Trump.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Agreed, there's been all kind of pose adoption. In reality, very little action has been taken, thus Trump.

This is the wrong thread, (the right one is now locked) but my theory of Trump's popularity is not the particular stand he takes on any issue, it's the fact he enthusiastically bulldozes over any and all politically correct stands. He's not selling a wall, he's selling the promise of a future where anyone can blurt out whatever politically incorrect thought that might blow through their minds without fear of someone jumping down their throats. He promises they are going to be able to turn off their internal censor, relax and "tell the truth." They're not applauding the wall, per se, they're applauding his defiance of socially imposed censorship. That's my take on it.

 

[russ_watters]

It's not a revolution, it's a presidential election.

It's a regime change. One of the key things that makes the US great is that we pretty much invented the concept of a smooth/peaceful regime change.

I'msorry, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying no candidate is worth considering unless he's an obvious nationalist?

Nationalist was your word choice and I believe it to be inaccurate. I would say that no candidate should be considered who isn't an obvious patriot. But that's just my opinion and didnt, for example, keep Obama from being elected. My hope is that isn't a new trend.

 

[mheslep]

This is the wrong thread, (the right one is now locked) but my theory of Trump's popularity is not the particular stand he takes on any issue, it's the fact he enthusiastically bulldozes over any and all politically correct stands. He's not selling a wall, he's selling the promise of a future where anyone can blurt out whatever politically incorrect thought that might blow through their minds without fear of someone jumping down their throats. He promises they are going to be able to turn off their internal censor, relax and "tell the truth." They're not applauding the wall, per se, they're applauding his defiance of socially imposed censorship. That's my take on it.

Disagree that PC is the main issue. PC is a problem but it has not made blue collars angry in the way that immigration abuses do. GOP candidate after candidate keeps getting the anger about immigration abuses wrong. For Trump to be believed by his followers on the wall, his anti-pc , establishment go to hell language is convincing. Consider, does anyone believe Trump would take office and be turned around on the wall by those saying he had to court the hispanic demographic, as GOP politicians have for years, or by negative opinions on Telemundo?

 

[jtbell]

Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has decided not to run as a third-party candidate.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...ection-risk-that-michael-bloomberg-won-t-take

As the race stands now, with Republicans in charge of both Houses, there is a good chance that my candidacy could lead to the election of Donald Trump or Senator Ted Cruz. That is not a risk I can take in good conscience.

 

[Astronuc]

Trump led the way with 36 percent, followed by 23 percent for Cruz and 21 percent for Kasich, the governor of Ohio who has pinned his hopes both in Michigan and, like Rubio, on his home state's March 15 primary.

Meanwhile, Florida senator Marco Rubio is polling a distant fourth among those likely to vote in Tuesday's Republican primary with just 13 percent, which is below the threshold of 15 percent is necessary to claim any delegates in Michigan.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/poll-michigan-gop-2016-220369

 

[mheslep]

As of Feb 22, in Florida Rubio was at 15% and Trump 36%. Since then, Rubio has sharply increased to 27%, and Trump to 45%, though Trump has dropped in the last day. Their gains have come a Cruz's and Carson's expense.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_republican_presidential_primary-3555.html

 

[zoobyshoe]

Disagree that PC is the main issue. PC is a problem but it has not made blue collars angry in the way that immigration abuses do. GOP candidate after candidate keeps getting the anger about immigration abuses wrong. For Trump to be believed by his followers on the wall, his anti-pc , establishment go to hell language is convincing. Consider, does anyone believe Trump would take office and be turned around on the wall by those saying he had to court the hispanic demographic, as GOP politicians have for years, or by negative opinions on Telemundo?

Of course you're right that no one thinks he's going to get turned around. However, I think the general impression "He speaks the truth," is more what's operating on his supporters than any specific like "He'll take care of the illegal immigrant problem."

Here's a sample:

Of course, you may question if these people are authentically representative, I suppose.

 

[mheslep]

Of course you're right that no one thinks he's going to get turned around. However, I think the general impression "He speaks the truth," is more what's operating on his supporters than any specific like "He'll take care of the illegal immigrant problem."
...
Of course, you may question if these people are authentically representative, I suppose.

Immigration and the border are the first specific mentioned, the third sentence in that panel video. I think we're talking past each other.

 

[jobyts]

Here's a scientific study and its conclusion.

[link deleted by mod]

 

[mheslep]

Here's a scientific study and its conclusion.

[link deleted by mod]

If you have an actual reference to a topical scientific study, please demonstrate. Amanda Taub, the "Senior Sadness Correspondent" at the left leaning Vox is not the author of such a study.

 

[mheslep]

Recently, Trump's popular support finally collapsed when he the bellicose billionaire went too far with, "What I meant to say, is when you talk about ghettos, traditionally what you’re talking about is African-American communities", after asserting that white people don't know what its like to be poor in the last debate.

No, that was Sanders that made the comment, so everything's ok.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/07/the-unbearable-whiteness-of-being-bernie.html

 

[zoobyshoe]

Immigration and the border are the first specific mentioned, the third sentence in that panel video.

Here's the exchange you're referring to:

Woman:
"He says it like it is. He speaks the truth."

Moderator:
"What truth is that?"

Woman:
"When he talks about, especially, immigration control and the border he really…he doesn't care what people think. He tells the truth, what we need to do."

And here's what I said:

I think the general impression "He speaks the truth," is more what's operating on his supporters than any specific like "He'll take care of the illegal immigrant problem."

So, reading what that woman says, it's clear she likes the uncensored way he talks about immigration control and the border, specifically that "He doesn't care what people think" when he talks about it. She doesn't say, "I like him because he wants to build a wall." All her comments describe his frankness, and not the specifics of his proposals. It's clear to me, "He speaks the truth," is more what's operating on this woman than, "He'll take care of the immigrant problem."

Your response, that "Immigration and the border are the first specific mentioned," is a fallacy of irrelevance. The fact it is mentioned, and the fact it is the first thing mentioned, have no bearing on the question of whether she likes the way he talks about it even more than what he says about it. Your response contains no argument to the effect she's primarily persuaded by his specific proposed remedies on the issue rather than his blunt manner of speaking, and completely ignores what she actually states she likes.

And: What about everyone else in the video?

Edit by mod: unacceptable quoted deleted link

 

[russ_watters]

Here's a scientific study and its conclusion.

[link deleted by mod]

First, no, that's not a scientific study, it is a [alternative] news article. It cites a bunch of studies, but it isn't itself a study. Next, on checking, the very first stat I checked in the article was wrong: a critical qualifier was omitted that vastly changes the meaning of the stat. This does not meet our guidelines, so it is deleted.

That said, the general idea that Republicans, more than Democrats, favor strong leaders and that Republican candidates/Presidents are generally stronger leaders than Democratic ones appears to me to be common knowledge/the standard view. One just doesn't need to put Donald's head on a Mao poster to discuss it.

 

[mheslep]

...All her comments describe his frankness, and not the specifics of his proposals.

No specifics? " Immigration control and the border" was the first issue she mentioned when questioned about more specifics. Must she have addressed the number of proposed fence miles to be specific? She did not start with, "He says it like it is ..." on the budget, on military spending, on college loans. I don't understand a line that labels this observation irrelevant, so I won't continue on this point.

 

[zoobyshoe]

If you have an actual reference to a topical scientific study, please demonstrate. Amanda Taub, the "Senior Sadness Correspondent" at the left leaning Vox is not the author of such a study.

Joyts certainly misspoke when he referred to the article as a study, but that doesn't change the fact the article is based on a study, and quotes from authentically peered reviewed political science experts. Unless you can demonstrate she mischaracterizes those studies and those experts, then your questioning of her is an ad hominem fallacy. There is no reason to suppose she can't properly characterize her sources without some evidence.